b-greek-digest Monday, 7 August 1995 Volume 01 : Number 814
In this issue:
Not a Science
Re: Not a Science
Trinity in Titus 2:13,14
Phil 1:7
Re: Not a Science
John 1:1c
Pure word for word translation
subjective genitives
Re: Not a Science
Re: Pure word for word translation
re: Pure word for word translation
Titus 2:13, 14
JW's NT
JW
Re: File: "DATABASE OUTPUT"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Craig Martin <CrMartin@sunbelt.net>
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 1995 03:20:50 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Not a Science
Friends,
One thing I have learned in the 25 years I have been studying the Bible
(with the inevitabe causual interest in Greek) is that this is not a
science. Most folk unfamiliar with the ancient languages will stand silent
before those "in the know", and just assume that they who know Heb/Gk will
settle every issue. There is the misconception that this is like algebra or
calc, where you can translate the text word for word and come out with the
truth. Yet in reading many of the writings of respected experts, I find
there is not a lot of agreement when discussing some specfic passages. An
example:
Mark 11:22
...echete pistin theou...
>From my limited knowledge of the Greek, I would translate this "have faith
of God". Yet most translators render it "have faith in God". I understand
that theou is the objective "of" denoting possession, and could even be
translated "God's faith".
I searched out every instance where theou is used in Mark, and found no case
where it was (or could be) translated "in God". Most were phrases like
"kingdom of God", and "Son of God. Obviously "kingdom in God" and "Son in
God" make no sence. Yet in this one instance it is rendered "in God".
Also I see differences in the way that "eis" is translated. From my
textbooks, it is illustrated as a preposition denoting action or change:
starting at the "outside" of an object and ending at the "inside": hence
"into". Yet in John 3:16 the word is rendered "in" by almost everyone.
"pisteuon eis auton" = believe into him?
Hence my conclusion that some translation is the _opinion_ of the
translator, and not rote.
Question:
Is there a pure word for word translation somewhere that does not reflect
the opinion of a translator? I have an interlinear, and find similar
difference in it. I have Young's "Literal", and see similar inconsistancies.
Am I missing something? Or am I correct in saying that we are putting our
faith in the personal opinions of nevertheless good men.
forever humble
Craig
------------------------------
From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 1995 10:25:32 -0400
Subject: Re: Not a Science
Craig,
What follows is the discription of the function of case and prepositions in
Greek nouns from Syntax of NT Greek by Brooks & Winbery. We dealt with both
case and prepositions as virtually having the same functions in relation to
substantives. No translation is not an exact science. I have often stated
that studying language is a lot like studying psychology, the way people
think. The effort of translators of ancient documents involves not only
linquistics but other social sciences as well. What we are really trying to
do is not just get words on a page, but get into the mind of the ancient
writer.
CASE
Case is that aspect of a substantive which indicates its grammatical
relationship to the verb and/ or other elements in the sentence. The Greek
substantive appears in four, or in some instances five, case forms which are
often referred to as the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth inflected
forms. Grammarians are divided as to whether case is determined by form or
use. If the former, there are five cases which correspond to the five
inflected forms: the nominative, the genitive, the dative, the accusative,
and the vocative. If the latter, there are eight cases. The nominative
employs the first inflected form; the genitive and ablative the second; the
dative, locative, and instrumental the third; the accusative the fourth; and
the vocative the fifth. (If there is no fifth inflected form the vocative
also employs the first inflected form in both the five- and eight-case
systems.) This book will employ the eight-case system but will provide cross
references to the five-case system.
Words in the fourth and fifth inflected forms will always be accusative and
vocative respec-tively. In all other instances the case of a substantive
must be determined by its use in the sentence. A word in the first inflected
form may be nominative or vocative; a word in the first inflected form may be
nominative or vocative; a word in the second genitive or ablative; and a word
in the third dative, locative, or instrumental. Inasmuch as neuter nouns
have only three case forms--the first being used for the nominative,
accusative, and vocative; the second and third as above--their case must be
determined in every instance by use in the sentence. And in every instance
the particular syntax of the case of a word must be determined by the way in
which it is used.
Prepositions are function words which assist substantives in expressing
their case relationship. They help interpret the syntax of case. They help
define case usage. Prepositions are also prefixed to verbs to form compound
verbs, but such use in composition is not relevant to the present subject.
There are also a number of adverbs which are used with substantives in
exactly the same way as pre-positions. When so used they are some times
referred to as improper prepositions or adverbial pre-positions. Such
adverbs differ from true prepositions in that prepositions were originally
adverbs and even in the New Testament are occasionally used as adverbs, but
in the development of the lang-uage they more and more came to be orientated
toward substantives rather than verbs. In the fol-lowing discussion of
syntactical categories an indication is made of which prepositions and
adverbs, if any, are used with each category. Also, at the conclusion of the
treatment of the cases, there is a complete list of both true prepositions
and adverbial prepositions together with an indication of the cases with
which they are used and of their particular function(s) with each case.
Prepositions are used only with the oblique cases, i.e. those other than the
nominative and the vocative.
I would add to this that there is nothing that Christians accomplish together
that does not involve trust.
Grace,
Carlton Winbery
Prof. Rel.
LA College, Pineville, LA
------------------------------
From: Daniel Hedrick <hedrickd@ochampus.mil>
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 1995 08:54:10 -0600
Subject: Trinity in Titus 2:13,14
I was curious if the greek presents a strong
representation of Jesus as God in Titus 2:13,14.
Comments?
------------------------------
From: Mikeal Parsons <PARSONSM@baylor.edu>
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 1995 11:08:41 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Phil 1:7
Carl Conrad wrote:
isn't the
endeavor to read the second accusative in 1:7 (hUMAS) as the SUBJECT of the
infinitive (EXEIN) really based upon interpreting it with reference to what
we learn of the gift of the Philippian congregation in 4:10ff? Perhaps that
makes sense enough if one is satisfied of the integrity of Philippians as a
single letter, but it still seems more likely to me that Paul would have
said something about the gift in the immediate context of those Salutation
and Thanksgiving formulae at the beginning of the letter.
The question of the integrity of Philippians is a difficult one (perhaps one
we can come back to), but I'd like to point out that there may in fact
be an anticipation of the 'thankless thanksgiving' of ch. 4 already inthe
thanksgiving section of phil 1:3-10. In v. 4 Paul says that he is thankful
for the partnership (koinonia) of the Philippians from the first day until
now. later in v. 7 (under discussion on the list now) Paul says that "you [
i.e. the philippians] are partners with me (sugkoinonous mou] of grace."
Interestingly, when Paul refers to the gift of the Philippians in ch. 4, he
uses various cognates of koinonia: in 4:14, he says, "you did well, sharing
with me (sugkoinonesantes mou)." in 4:15 he says "when I left
Macedonia, no church entered into partnership (ekoinonesen) with me
in giving and receiving except you only." Twice then Paul uses a form
of koinonia to speak of the Philippians sharing with him in his apostolic
vocation by sending a financial gift. I would suggest, contra conrad, that
the Philippians' gift is foreshadowed in the thanksgving section of 1:3-10
( a view strengthened by the fact that elsewhere paul will refer to financial
gifts as koinonia; cf. Rom 15:26; 2 Cor 8:4; 9:13 where he speaks of the collection for the Jerusalem poor).
I do not think this point resolves the translation issue, however. The context
seems neutral. As Hawthorne puts it: "Verse 8 may favor the interpreation "i have you in my heart," but the content of v. 7 favors the opposite." I tend
to agree with the first, "I have you in my heart" because in the context
of Philippians it is important for Paul to establish 1) that he cares for
_all_ the philippians (notice the preponderance of forms of pas) and 2) that
his affections for the philippians is independent of their gift to him (one
of the points of the thankless thanksgiving of ch. 4). so given the ambiguity
of the construction, i would opt for the translation which best fits the
context of paul's rhetoric in philippians, namely, "I hold you in my heart."
an aside: given the evidence cited by hawthorne and the general drift of
this discussion, would this phrase alshave been ambiguous to a native
hearer? in other words, could the ambiguity be rhetorically intentional?
another aside, for a convincing (to me at least) defense of the integrity of
philippians, see David Garland's essy in Novum Testamentum (1985) on
"The Integrity of Philippians: Some Neglected Literary Factors."
cheers,
mikeal parsons
baylor university
------------------------------
From: Stephen Carlson <scc@reston.icl.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 95 11:17:45 EDT
Subject: Re: Not a Science
Craig Martin wrote:
> Friends,
> Yet in reading many of the writings of respected experts, I find
> there is not a lot of agreement when discussing some specfic passages. An
> example:
> Mark 11:22
> ...echete pistin theou...
> >From my limited knowledge of the Greek, I would translate this "have faith
> of God". Yet most translators render it "have faith in God". I understand
> that theou is the objective "of" denoting possession, and could even be
> translated "God's faith".
We just had (late March) a huge discussion about Paul's use of
PISTIS IHSOU XRISTOU, and a consensus quickly developed that the
issue here is that PISTIS doesn't just have one meaning and that
the genitive does not just have one meaning. PISTIS, often
translated as "faith," can mean (a) belief, (b) trust, (c)
belief-system, (d) faithfulness, etc.. The genitive QEOU can
be, inter alia, subjective (i.e., God is doing the believing or
being faithful) or objective (i.e., God is being believed in).
Thus, the out-of-context phrase PISTIS QEOU can validly mean any
of the following: (a) faith in God, (b) God's faith, (c) God's
belief-system (i.e., Christianity, cf. Rv14:12), (d) God's
faithfulness, etc.
Unlike the situation in Paul's epistles where the context
furnishes tantalizingly few clues to the meaning, the context of
Mark 11:22 is quite helpful. Jesus follows up this command with
an explanation encapsulated in v24 ("So I tell you, whatever you
ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be
yours." NRSV). Therefore, a translation like "have [your] trust
in God" or "have faith in God" (KJV, NRSV) fits best with what
Jesus is saying.
> I searched out every instance where theou is used in Mark, and found no case
> where it was (or could be) translated "in God". Most were phrases like
> "kingdom of God", and "Son of God. Obviously "kingdom in God" and "Son in
> God" make no sence. Yet in this one instance it is rendered "in God".
The issue is not whether the genitive is usually rendered as "in
God." The issue here is what is the function of this genitive.
The context clearly show that it is objective -- that God is the
object of the faith. Normally objective genitives are rendered
into English with "of," but for English verbs of believing, the
English preposition "in" is the most appropriate. Therefore, the
use of "in" depends more on the requirements of English grammar
than those of Greek.
> Also I see differences in the way that "eis" is translated. From my
> textbooks, it is illustrated as a preposition denoting action or change:
> starting at the "outside" of an object and ending at the "inside": hence
> "into". Yet in John 3:16 the word is rendered "in" by almost everyone.
>
> "pisteuon eis auton" = believe into him?
I would submit that "believe into him" is simply not grammatical
English. A minimum requirement of translation, I think, is that
it should be grammatical in the target language. Furthermore, I
note that the English preposition "in" can mean "into" as in "I
went in the house."
> Hence my conclusion that some translation is the _opinion_ of the
> translator, and not rote.
This will always be the case. In fact, this problem is inherent
in any act of communication. To minimize the problems with
translation, I recommend (a) use several translations, (b)
prefer committee translations to individual translations, and
(c) learn the source language. You should also learn a bit
about textual criticism, because some differences in translation
reflect differences in the Greek text used.
> Question:
> Is there a pure word for word translation somewhere that does not reflect
> the opinion of a translator? I have an interlinear, and find similar
> difference in it. I have Young's "Literal", and see similar inconsistancies.
No. There is no such thing as a "pure word for word translation."
There do exist some very literal (formal equivalence) translations,
such as the NASB.
> Am I missing something? Or am I correct in saying that we are putting our
> faith in the personal opinions of nevertheless good men.
Not all. Greek is not a secret code available only to a select
few. Anyone can with diligence learn it and bypass the translators.
Stephen Carlson
- --
Stephen Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations, : ICL, Inc.
scc@reston.icl.com : and songs chant the words. : 11490 Commerce Park Dr.
(703) 648-3330 : Shujing 2:35 : Reston, VA 22091 USA
------------------------------
From: John Albu <tunon@phantom.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 1995 12:24:55 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: John 1:1c
On July 13, 1995, Alan R. Craig <CSRT29A@prodigy.com> wrote:
> Because there appear to be a number of different ones here who either
> have access to some remarkable libraries or to some comprehensive CD-
> ROM materials, I would be interested in having someone do a search for
> me. I am trying to locate other examples from the N.T. Greek, LXX, or
> even Classical Greek which parallel the exact word order and precise
> sentence structure as that of John 1:1c; e.g., Acts 28:4; Mark 2:28;
> Esther 10:3 (LXX).
This subject is covered in New World Translation of the Holy
Scriptures--With References, Appendix 6A, published by Watchtower Bible
and Tract Society, Brooklyn, New York, 1984, p. 1579. The examples
presented therein are from the gospels of Mark and John. Herewith I am
quoting this appendix.
Sincerely yours,
John Albu
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
6A Jesus-A Godlike One; Divine
Joh 1:1-"and the Word was a god (godlike; divine)"
Gr., kai the.os' en ho lo'gos
1808 "and the word was a god" The New Testament, in An Improved
Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop
Newcome's New Translation: With a
Corrected Text, London.
1864 "and a god was the Word" The Emphatic Diaglott (J21, interlinear
reading), by Benjamin Wilson, New
York and London.
1935 "and the Word was divine" The Bible-An American Translation,
by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed,
Chicago.
1950 "and the Word was a god" New World Translation of the
Christian Greek Scriptures, Brooklyn.
1975 "and a god (or, of a divine Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by
kind) was the Word"* Siegfried Schulz, Gottingen, Germany.
1978 "and godlike sort was the Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by
Logos"* Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin.
1979 "and a god was the Logos"* Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by
Jurgen Becker, Wurzburg, Germany.
These translations use such words as "a god," "divine" or "godlike"
because the Greek word the.os' is a singular predicate noun occurring
before the verb and is not preceded by the definite article. This is an
anarthrous the.os'. The God with whom the Word, or Logos, was originally
is designated here by the Greek expression ho the.os', that is, the.os'
preceded by the definite article ho. This is an articular the.os'.
Careful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun
points to an identity, a personality, whereas a singular anarthrous
predicate noun preceding the verb points to a quality about someone.
Therefore, John's statement that the Word or Logos was "a god" or
"divine" or "godlike" does not mean that he was the God with whom he was.
It merely expresses a certain quality about the Word, or Logos, but it
does not identify him as one and the same as God himself.
In the Greek text there are many cases of a singular anarthrous
predicate noun preceding the verb, such as in Mr 6:49; 11:32; Joh 4:19;
6:70; 8:44; 9:17; 10:1, 13, 33; 12:6. In these places translators insert
the indefinite article "a" before the predicate noun in order to bring
out the quality or characteristic of the subject. Since the indefinite
article is inserted before the predicate noun in such texts, with equal
justification the indefinite article "a" is inserted before the
anarthrous the.os' in the predicate of John 1:1 to make it read "a god."
The Sacred Scriptures confirm the correctness of this rendering.
In his article "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark
15:39 and John 1:1," published in Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol.
92, Philadelphia, 1973, p. 85, Philip B. Harner said that such clauses as
the one in Joh 1:1, "with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are
primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the
nature of theos. There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as
definite." On p. 87 of his article, Harner concluded: "In John 1:1 I
think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that
the noun cannot be regarded as definite."
Following is a list of instances in the gospels of Mark and John where
various translators have rendered singular anarthrous predicate nouns
occurring before the verb with an indefinite article to denote the
indefinite and qualitative status of the subject nouns:
Scripture New King An New Revised Tuday's
Text World James American International Standard English
Translation Version Translation Version Version Version
Mark
6:49 an apparition a spirit a ghost a ghost a ghost a ghost
11:32 a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet a real prophet a prophet
John
4:19 a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet
6:70 a slanderer a devil an informer a devil a devil a devil
8:44 a manslayer a murderer a murderer a murderer a murderer a murderer
8:44 a liar a liar a liar a liar a liar a liar
9:17 a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet a prophet
10:1 a thief a thief a thief a thief a thief a thief
10:13 a hired man an hireling a hired man a hired hand a hireling a hired
man
10:33 a man a man a mere man a mere man a man a man
12:6 a thief a thief a thief a thief a thief a thief
[The footnote reads:]
*Translated from German.
------------------------------
From: John Albu <tunon@phantom.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 1995 12:33:59 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Pure word for word translation
On August 7, 1995, Craig Martin <CrMartin@sunbelt.net> wrote:
> Is there a pure word for word translation somewhere that does not reflect
> the opinion of a translator? I have an interlinear, and find similar
> difference in it. I have Young's "Literal", and see similar
inconsistancies.
In 1969 the Kingdom Interlinear Translation was published by
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society in Brooklyn, New York. Subsequently,
in 1985 a new edition of the same publication was released. A review of
the 1969 edition was published by Thomas N. Winter of the University of
Nebraska in "The Classical Journal," Vol. 69, No. 4, April-May, 1974, pp.
375-376. Herewith I am quoting from that review.
Sincerely yours,
John Albu
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"An original Greek text for two dollars is something of a miracle,
and it should not surprise us that it took a world-wide group of Bible
students to pull it off. This is no ordinary interlinear: the integrity
of the text is preserved, and the English which appears below it is
simply the basic meaning of the Greek word. . . . A translation in smooth
English appears in a slim column at the right-hand margin of the pages. .
. . I think it is a legitimate and highly useful aid toward the mastery
of koine (and classical) Greek. After examining a copy, I equipped
several interested second-year Greek students with it as an auxiliary
text. . . . After learning the proper pronunciations, a motivated student
could probably learn koine Greek from this source alone.
"The text is based on that of Brooke F. Westcott and Fenton J. A.
Hort (1881, repr.), but the translation by the anonymous committee is
thoroughly up-to-date and consistently accurate. Where both the King
James and the Revised Standard, for instance, have 'wise men' for the
Greek magoi (e.g., Matt. 2:1, 2:7, 2:16), the Kingdom Interlinear has
'astrologers,' a more correct and informative rendition. The book has
been very carefully compiled and printed.
"In sum, when a Witness comes to the door, the classicist, Greek
student, or Bible student alike would do well to bring him in and place
an order. Or you can order direct from Brooklyn (117 Adams St. The ZIP is
11201)."
------------------------------
From: Mikeal Parsons <PARSONSM@baylor.edu>
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 1995 11:50:37 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: subjective genitives
I take it from stephen carlson's recent posting that a discussion of pistis
ihsou took place on this list earlier. i wonder if the parallel problem with
works of the law (erga vomou) was also discussed? One can make a rather
compelling case that just as faith of Christ may be subjective, CHrist's
faith or faithfulness, so works of the law, contra Luther, may refer not
to the works one does in the law, but the law's work, ie. the law's function,
which for Paul has to do with the (in)adequacy of the law's soteriological
function. A key verse here is Galatians 2:16. but i won't venture off into
this discussion until i know whether this is ground already covered on
this list.
guess i'll go back to work now :-(
mikeal parsons
baylor university
------------------------------
From: WINBROW@aol.com
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 1995 13:03:48 -0400
Subject: Re: Not a Science
Craig,
I would agree with Stephen Carlson in some good advice to you about
translations, especially to use several and to use committee translations.
In addition to the discussion of case and prepositions in my first post to
you, you might examine the way the Greek preposition en is translated in the
following examples with the dative case. The words in the Greek in
parentheses are translated by the words in English in parentheses. Remember
that we often use prepositions in English quite loosely. We ride ON a train
but IN a plane. Context is extremely important in translations both words
and structures.
outws (en tais ekklhsias pasais) diatassomai. (I Cor. 7:17)
In this way I give instructions (to all the churches) .
kalon ergon hrgasato en (emoi). (Mark 14:6)
She has done a good thing for (me).
epoihsan (en autw) osa hqelhsan. (Matt. 17:12)
They did (with him) whatever they pleased.
ouk oidate (en Hlia) ti legei h grafhx (Rom. 11:2)
Do you not know what the Scripture says (about Elijah )?
pa" osti" omologhsei (en emoi) emprosqen twn anqrwpwn, omologhsw kagw; (en
autw) emprosqen tou patro" mou. (Matt. 10:32; cf. Luke 12:8)
Everyone who shall confess (me) before men, I will also confess (him) before
my Father.
(en tw kosmw) hn. (John 1:10)
He was (in the world).
anasthsw auton (en th escath hmera). (John 6:44)
I will raise him (at the last day).
martu" mou estin o qeo", w latreuw en tw pneumati mou (en tw euaggeliw).
(Rom. 1:9)
God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit (in the gospel).
(en toutw) ginwskomen oti egnwkamen auton. (I Jo. 2:3)
(By this means) we know that we have come to know him.
edoxazon (en emoi) ton qeon. (Gal. 1:24)
They glorified God (because of me).
auto" o kurio" (en keleusmati), (en fwnh) arcaggelou kai (en salpiggi) qeou,
katabhsetai ap ouranou. (I Thess. 4:16)
The Lord himself will descend from heaven (with a shout), (with the voice) of
an archangel, and (with the trumpet ) of God.
Iwshf metekalesato Iakwb ton patera autou kai pasan thn suggeneian (en yucai"
ebdomhkonta pente). (Acts 7:14)
Joseph called Jacob his father and all his relatives (amounting to
seventy-five persons).
hlqen kurios (en agiais muriasin) autou. (Jude 14)
The Lord came (with his holy myriads).
outos ouk ekballei ta daimonia ei mh (en tw beelzeboul). (Matt. 12:24)
This man does not cast out demons except (by Beelzebul).
------------------------------
From: Mark O'Brien <Mark_O'Brien@dts.edu>
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 95 12:10:12 CST
Subject: Re: Pure word for word translation
Original message sent on Mon, Aug 7 6:33 AM by tunon@phantom.com (John Albu) :
> "The text is based on that of Brooke F. Westcott and Fenton J. A.
> Hort (1881, repr.), but the translation by the anonymous committee
> is thoroughly up-to-date and consistently accurate.
"anonymous committee".... hmmm... is this supposed to instil me with
confidence in their contributions to bibical scholarship?
Mark O'Brien
Dallas Theological Seminary
------------------------------
From: Eric Weiss <eweiss@acf.dhhs.gov>
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 95 13:00:51 -24000
Subject: re: Pure word for word translation
Despite John Albu's (tunon@phantom.com) apparent admiration of the Kingdom
Interlinear Translation, I have only read negative opinions and critiques of
it. For those interested, there are numerous WorldWide Web pages related to
Jehovah's Witnesses translations (e.g., the Christian Research Institute Web
page, the Watchman Expositor Web page articles, etc.).
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 1995 13:53:58 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Titus 2:13, 14
Daniel Hedrick <hedrickd@ochampus.mil> wrote:
>I was curious if the greek presents a strong
>representation of Jesus as God in Titus 2:13,14.
>Comments?
From a grammatical point of view, note that both MEGALOU QEOU and
SWTHROS hHMWN have only one article which apparently corresponds to them
both. This implies that both expressions are in reference to the same person
(i.e. Christ). Since, however, this is not a hard and fast rule some have
translated MEGALOU QEOU as referring to God the Father and SWTHEROS hHMWN as
in reference to Christ.
Nevertheless, if one takes into account the similarity of expression
here to the titles by which the emperors and other high rulers of that day
had themselves addressed, it is not unreasonable to consider that Paul is
making a statement here about the right to such titles. The Pagan rulers,
of course, according to Paul's thought, usurped such titles, but they were
totally fitting and proper when applied to Christ.
IMO, we have here a Christian comment on Christ's dignity in
comparison to that of the rulers of that day. So I take this passage as a
strong statement of the diety of Christ.
Regards,
David L. Moore Southeastern Spanish District
Miami, Florida of the Assemblies of God
dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us Department of Education
------------------------------
From: "DR. KEN PULLIAM" <thedoc@aztec.asu.edu>
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 1995 12:41:21 -0700 (MST)
Subject: JW's NT
I notice that John Albu, whom I suppose is a JW, is eager to defend
the New World Translation. I wonder if he is familiar with Robet
Countess' execllent work THE JEHOVAH WITNESS' NEW TESTAMENT published
by Presb. and REformed?
- --
Ken R. Pulliam, Ph.D.
Chandler, Arizona
thedoc@aztec.asu.edu
------------------------------
From: Eric Weiss <eweiss@acf.dhhs.gov>
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 95 16:22:48 -24000
Subject: JW
Again, for those being persuaded by John Albu to read or purchase the Kingdom
Interlinear Translation or other Jehovah's Witnesses Bibles as reliable Greek
texts or translations, etc., there is pertinent information on the
reliability of this organization's scholarship, translations, etc., on the
Internet (World Wide Web) at
http://www.ic/net.org/pub/resources/text/apl/jw/1-jw-home.html
An easy way to get to this is to use a search engine like Web Crawler and
search for "Jesus Witnesses" (which is at this address).
------------------------------
From: David Moore <dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 1995 13:34:44 -0700
Subject: Re: File: "DATABASE OUTPUT"
To: B-Greek list members
Following is a summary on the subject of e-mail citation that was
posted to the Linguist List. I hope that it may be of interest.
Regards,
David L. Moore Department of Education
Miami, FL, USA Southeastern Spanish District
Dvdmoore@ix.netcom.com of the Assemblies of God
Summary follows:
***********************************************
>1)
>Date: Thu, 03 Aug 1995 22:14:40 CDT
>From: hmanders@indiana.edu (heather marie anderson)
>Subject: e-mail citation summary
>
>---------------------------------Messages------------------------------
- ------
>1)
>Date: Thu, 03 Aug 1995 22:14:40 CDT
>From: hmanders@indiana.edu (heather marie anderson)
>Subject: e-mail citation summary
>
> About a week ago I posted a query asking how to cite e-mail
messages.
>I'd like to thank the following people for their prompt and
informative
>responses:
>David Stampe
>Joseph Tomei
>Meg Gam
>Bert Peters
>Alfred Rosa
>bparker (only e-mail address given)
>F. Gladney
>Marty Jacobsen
>Elizabeth M. Bergman
>Dorine Houston
>Susan Fagyal
>Debra Hardison
>
> Several style manuals were recommended. The latest editions
of
>the MLA, APA and Chicago all make reference to electronic sources.
Xai Li
>and Nancy B. Crane's book Electronic Style was recommended by several
>people. The publisher (?) Allyn & Bacon is also making a style guide
>available.
> Three electronic guides were also recommended; the FAQ file of
the
>group "alt.usage.english" available from "misreal@scripps.edu", a file
on
>the TESL-L mailing list and a previous posting to Linguist list Vol
6-210
>Mon 13 Feb 1995.I have a copy of this last source which I am willing
to
>forward to anyone interested (note this message also explains how to
get
>the TESL list).
> Besides giving me references, many of those responding
cautioned
>me to get the permission of my sources before citing them. There are
at
>least two reasons for this; first many people respond to queries off
the
>top of their heads without double checking their facts and second
while
>willing to respond to one query many people may not want to set
>themselves as a source to be consulted by anyone doing research on the
>subject in question. In most situations, I have come to the
conclusion
>that personal e-mail should be cited as personal communications, which
is
>enough to indicate that the information is not original to the author
>without making any promises that the source will act as a reference.
(co-
>incidentally this is the solution suggested by about half of my
>respondents). However a posting to a list (like this summary) which
is
>available to anyone and which can be accessed without contacting the
>author directly should be cited according to the style guide of your
choice
>or in such a way that it can be easily found.
>
>Heather Anderson
>hmanders@indiana.edu
>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
- -
>LINGUIST List: Vol-6-1049.
>
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #814
*****************************
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
To unsubscribe from this list write
majordomo@virginia.edu
with "unsubscribe b-greek-digest" as your message content. For other
automated services write to the above address with the message content
"help".
For further information, you can write the owner of the list at
owner-b-greek@virginia.edu
You can send mail to the entire list via the address:
b-greek@virginia.edu